Chandigarh High Court Regularization in Government Job Case

Validation of Petition seeking Regularization of Government Services

This post is a summary on Regularization in Government Service petition before Punjab Haryana High Court which was granted by Hon’ble High Court Chandigarh.

Also Read- Suspension Order Challenged in High Court Chandigarh

The case Title is Pawan Kumar vs District Red Cross Society & Anr

17 March, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

Petitioner- Pawan Kumar

Respondents- District Red Cross Society, Ambala, through its President-cum-Deputy Commissioner and others The petitioner firstly seeks rejection of the impugned order, which quashes his plea for regulation of his services, passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-President, District Red Cross Society on 06.06.2014.

Also Read- Can Transfer of Government Employees Be Challenged in Court ?

 Secondly, the petitioner seeks writ of certiorari and writ of mandamus directing the President and Secretary of the Society to regularise his pay scale and his services as recommended by the 6^th Pay Commission. On 13.02.2014 an impugned order was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench titled as Pawan Kumar VS. Union of India and others, directing the society to look into the matter and thereafter dispose it.

Also Read- Job in Chandigarh Police on Compassionate Ground Stayed by High Court

 Merits of the Petitioner’s case (in regard of the impugned order): a.          That the petitioner was appointed as a Chowkidar in a Government granted project titled as Working Women’s Hostel, Ambala City, which was later run by the income generated by the project itself.b.          That the services of juniors of the petitioner name Manju Verma and Suman (respondent no.3 and 4) have been regularised, where Manju Verma was an employee of the Society and Suman’s services were regulated by St. Johns’ Ambulance Association (a separate entity). The petitioner’s case got rejected.The petitioner challenged the impugned order in Original Application, before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Application got rejected for want of jurisdiction.

Also Read- How to Get Extension in a Government Job

  Contentions of the Petitioner in Present Petition:a)          Reiterated the fact of being appointed as a Chowkidar on 20.08.1990 and actually worked as a peon since past 25 years.b)         2009 onwards he started working in the Society office on a designated post of Peon and was issued an Identity card to the effect.c)          He posses the qualifications to be appointed as a Peon.d)         The rejection of petitioner’s representation for regularization of services is wholly an arbitrary act. The petitioner seeks regularization in parity with respondent no.2 and 3.

Also Read- All You Need to Know About Compassionate Appointment

 Preliminary objections filed by the Society:1.          Petitioner has been appointed as a Chowkidar in a Project and not against a designated post in the Society.2.          Hostel was closed down in 2014 in being declared as unsafe.  However, the petitioner was continued as a Chowkidar, till the disposal of the Malba/material.  3.          Manju Verma was appointed to the cadre of the Society itself and was therefore regularised therein, and as regards respondent no.4, Suman, she is an employee to the St. Johns’ Ambulance Association, ‘where she was regularised’. 4.          Reiterated that the petitioner worked as a daily wager and was not appointed.5.          On representation to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes, the petitioner’s representation got rejected.6.          Contents of the contentions by the petitioner are misleading wrong and denied. Also Read- Service Matter Cases in Punjab Haryana High Court  Judgments Quoted:1.           Smt. Alka Ghai v. J.R. Verma and others (LPA no.176 of 2008), decided on 16.04.20092.          Jivanlal v. Pravin Krishna, Principal Secretary and others (2016) 15 SCC 7473.           State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh 2016 (4) RSJ 2704.           Sheo Narain Nagar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 13 SCC 432.5.           Lal Mohammad and others v. Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. and other 2007 (2) SCC 5136.           State of Orissa and another v. Mamata Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 4367.           Union of India and another v. Ram Pal and others 2013 (3) SCT 220.8.          Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi (3) and others (2006) 4 SCC 19.          Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and others (2008) 10 SCC 1. Also Read- Punjab Haryana High Court Free Legal Advice in Service Matters Timeline of events:·        In reply to the contentions, the respondents said that vide a letter dated 29.06.2009, the Society regularised the services of such employees whose work and conduct had been satisfactory.·        On August 2017 the Court had directed the respondents to give the manes of the Officers who had passed the orders appointing respondent no.3 and 4 as Peons.·        The said officers, i.e. S/Shri Sameer Pal Srow and R.P. Bhardwaj had filed affidavits dated 07.10.2017 and 09.10.2017 respectively. ·        The affidavit stated that, in case of Suman observing her unblemished service record, she was appointed as a Peon and  Manju Verma, was working as a Peon in that office, who was appointed on a compassionate basis on 03.07.2000, she being a widow and having three children.·        The affidavit also stated that employees of the projects have in fact no claim for regularisation with the Society, on any employer- employee relationship basis.·        On 01.11.2017 the petitioner filed a reply to the affidavit reiterating the contentions already made in the petition.·        Thereafter the petitioner filed another list of employees whose services had been regulated by the Society in July 2004.·        Dilbagh Singh, Sunil Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Hitesh Kumar, Sonia Dua and Atul Kumar were reffered by the petitioner whose services were regulated.·        No reply was filed against the appointment and regularization of the above mentioned employees by the petitioner.·        The last document to be on record was the order passed on 19.10.2019 with the officer directed to state as to where all the employees as were still on the rolls of the Hostel on the date of its closure, were adjusted/posted.·        The respondents again filed a reply stating that the building used in the project was declared unsafe by the Department of Public Works and the building was thereafter demolished on 20.09.2017 with a file put up on 25.12.2017 to relieve the manpower from the Hostel by following the provisions of law, as their services no more required.·        Four more persons were shown working in the building till date against whom the Society asked for permission of the court to relieve the petitioner as the project had been shut down.·        On 27.11.2019 the petitioner filed another application seeking to place on record photocopies of the daily register of the Society for the period between February 2012 to September 2014, in which the attendants of the petitioner and other employees, including those who are shown to be regularised, is marked.·        After the attendance register was placed on record. The learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner stated that as per the attendance sheet, the petitioner had been performing duties along with those employees who have been regularised, in the same manner.·        The arguments put forward by the applicant-petitioner are not specifically noticed as the Respondents contend that the petitioner is continuously seeking to place on record new documents, even though the petition was filed in the year 2015. Also Read- Service Law Related Matters in Punjab Haryana High Court Findings of the Court:1.                Pursuant to orders passed by this court on 28.08.2017 and 11.10.2017, an affidavit of Shri D.R. Sharma, 16 of 27 General Secretary, Indian Red Cross Society, Haryana Branch, had been filed, the direction of this court being in the form of a query as to whether, at any stage, the regularisation policies issued by the State of Haryana had been adopted by the Society or not.2.                The affidavit of the General Secretary, dated 08.11.2017, states that the Society had neither framed any policy of regularisation of its own, nor had adopted the regularisation policies issued by the State of Haryana.3.                The order dated 05.10.2005 further states that the recommendation of the selection committee would be put up to the President of the State Branch of the Society for approval.4.                Counsel for the petitioner naturally reiterated in detail what is contained in the petition as also in the various applications filed from time to time, including those showing regularisation of different employees in the years 2004 and 2007, as already noticed earlier in this judgment.5.                As regards arguments addressed by Mr. R.K.Malik, learned senior counsel appearing for respondents no.3 and 4, he had on an earlier occasion submitted that the stand of the said respondents would be the same as that of respondents no.1 and 2 but in any case they would not like to comment with regard to whether or not the petitioners’ services be regularised, as long as their own services were not de-regularised.6.                Though I (justice) otherwise wholly agree with Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, that services of employees cannot be regularised and a proper method of appointment to any service has to be adopted as far as filling in regular vacancies is concerned, and therefore this court would be otherwise prohibited from issuing any writ of mandamus directing regularisation of the petitioner; yet, what cannot be ignored by this court is that the petitioner was in fact taken in service, even on a daily wage basis in the year 1990, and has continued as such even till the date that the judgment in this case was reserved, i.e. for a period of 29 years, the writ petition itself having remained pending for four years, and consequently, even at the time of the institution of the writ petition  he had put in 25 and 24 years of service respectively, albeit in a wholly temporary capacity.7.                Those regularised in July 2004 did not even have a minimum period of three years of service, being a contention not refuted by way of any reply or affidavit, and their regularisation in any case having been admitted, the inference that this court would take is that what is stated even in terms of the basic law of pleadings as contained in Rule 5 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.8.                 Though this is a writ petition invoking jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and discretion as regards pleadings is to an extent permissible, however with the respondents having admitted that the services of those persons had been regularised, this court would necessarily infer that regularisation of such services was also after a far lesser period of service than had been put in by the petitioner.9.                The fact that the petitioner had not always worked with the Hostel, has not been specifically denied wherein it has been stated that even if he was asked to work in the office of the Society, that does not mean that he was brought on the cadre strength of the Society.

Also Read- Types of Service Matters in Cat Tribunal Chandigarh

  Hence the Court finds no reason as to why the petitioner should be discriminated against. 10.           The Society undoubtedly is not Government and consequently no regularisation policy has been framed at any stage, even as per the affidavit filed by the General Secretary of the State level Society.11.          As regards whether or not the petitioner was an employee of the project, it has to be held by this court that even with him having initially been appointed to the Hostel subsequently his services have been continued not while working at the Hostel but while working in the office of the Society itself, though he continued to be shown on the rolls of the Hostel.12.          The petitioner is the employee of the Society either he worked as a peon or a Chowkidar in the project.13.          In the present case, the petitioner having been in temporary service right since 1990, continuing till date, even though the Hostel to which he was originally appointed has ceased to exist completely in the year 2014, in my opinion, he deserves to be regularised. Consequently, this petition is allowed, with the services of the petitioner directed to be regularised from the date that services of other temporary employees were regularised in July 2004, but with actual arrears of the benefits that would fall to the petitioner to only be paid from one year before the date of the filing of the writ petition.

Also Read- Aft Tribunal Advocates and Lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula and Mohali

  Conclusion:The petitioner filed a case for the regularization of his services as he was working in a Government aided Project since 25 years. His main contentions were that the Society had regularized the services of his juniors so in view of equality he should be entitled to the same. After due proceedings and due deliberations the Learned Court validated his petition and granted the relief so asked for.

Also Read- Service Matters in Labour Court Cat Tribunal and High Court

 For case specific advice, please contact Best Service Law Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali for Service Matter in High Court Punjab Haryana & AFT Chandigarh Bench & CAT Tribunal.  This post is written by Rashika Garg. More on 99888-17966.